<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (9) TMI 159 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331898</link>
    <description>Receipts from granting shopping space on sub-licence, together with service and facility charges, were held taxable as business income because the arrangement was a leave and licence, not a lease. The agreement did not create any interest in the property in favour of the assessee; the licensor retained control, and the assessee merely enjoyed a licence to use the area and grant sub-licences. The assessee was therefore not the owner or deemed owner for section 22, and the deeming provision relating to transfers of immovable property did not apply on these facts. The recurring charges and the assessee&#039;s objects showed a systematic commercial activity undertaken in the ordinary course of business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 159 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331898</link>
      <description>Receipts from granting shopping space on sub-licence, together with service and facility charges, were held taxable as business income because the arrangement was a leave and licence, not a lease. The agreement did not create any interest in the property in favour of the assessee; the licensor retained control, and the assessee merely enjoyed a licence to use the area and grant sub-licences. The assessee was therefore not the owner or deemed owner for section 22, and the deeming provision relating to transfers of immovable property did not apply on these facts. The recurring charges and the assessee&#039;s objects showed a systematic commercial activity undertaken in the ordinary course of business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>